for the rate payers. there's no cost difference between what shell has given us for the no-power price and what we would be able to do with our own hetchy power during the january to june runoff, firmed up, plus the market power rates. and, so, that was one key finding. in addition to that -- >> sorry, i just want to understand that. there was no price difference? >> there was no -- there was no significant projected savings. and, in fact, it came out once we firmed it, the firming costs and the shaping costs was about a dollar -- about a penny-43. while we started out with hetchy power being affordable, by the time you formed and shaped it, it was very close to what shell was giving us as a market price for the no power or market power. >> so, why, why wouldn't we go this way? >> it's a policy choice. one of the policy choices would be if we choose to go this way, which is a right answer, it does, however, then tie up 30 megawatts that you average generation that you wouldn't be able to sell to hunters point shipyard phase 2, or park merced, or transbay tower, or some other higher revenue payi